Skip to main content

That which our mind cannot grasp - reflections on the God Delusion

I know I'm really late in blogging about Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and I'm sure there's a huge amount of stuff on them there interwebs all about it. But we've just had a very nice little discussion group about the book at church so it's on my mind. So I thought I'd give just a small thought about it.

I think the key part of the book is the first chapter when Dawkins discusses in some detail the beliefs of Albert Einstein. Einstein clearly had a kind of a naturalistic mysticism, which Richard Dawkins argues is completely different from "supernatural religion." I think that conventional religion (if such a term is meaningful at all) is not in a completely different category from "Einsteinian religion." They are both in some sense, religion. But that would mess up Dawkins' argument so he pushes against it (a book about supernatural religion vs natural religion would be, in my opinion, much more interesting).

The key quote from Einstein is this:
"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness."

Dawkins says he agrees with this "with the reservation that 'cannot grasp' does not have to mean 'forever ungraspable'" (page 40). In other words the mystery, the "something" that Einstein talks about means simply to Dawkins "that which science has yet to discover." Dawkins believes mystery is simply the facts we have not collected yet, that which spurns science on to discover more.

But Dawkins has missed the key word in the Einstein quote: "there is a something which our mind cannot grasp." There is "something" which cannot ultimately be grasped by the scientific approach, by the rational mind. Perhaps the mind can describe it in some way. But that will not really get at it. You will not understand why it is so meaningful to people, how it can change people's lives by externally describing it. You can biochemically describe what falling in love might be, but that will not really get at it. That will not help you understand the power of the experience from the inside. The only thing that will approach that is poetry.

Mystery is not simply that which we have not yet rationally described. Mystery expresses the limitations of rational description.

There is that which the mind cannot grasp, but the heart can grasp it. And it is only in allowing the heart to grasp it (and be grasped by it) that you understand it in any meaningful way.

I spent many a sleepless night trying to grasp it with my mind, I spent years of study trying to grasp it with my mind. Ultimately you cannot. If I followed only my mind I would be an atheist. I find no argument for the existence of God convincing on any level.

I am a theist, I am a Christian, I am a Unitarian, because my heart has grasped a Love that will not let me down, will not let me go, and will not let me off the hook. I do not claim to understand it. And if you want to describe it in purely naturalistic terms, that's fine by me. But it does not change the fact that that Love has transformed my life, has saved me, and continues to do so every day, if I keep opening my heart to allow it.

And that's why I'm one of them weird religious people.

Comments

Steven Rowe said…
Wonderful post!

Popular posts from this blog

Swords into Ploughshares

  "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4 Palestine Action are doing just this: beating swords into ploughshares i.e. putting weapons out of use. In doing so they are fulfilling this biblical mandate. They are expressing God's peace as expressed in the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. God desires that our swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, that we should unlearn war. That the government wants to make this action illegal has to be confronted in the strongest terms. To rush to condemn attacks on weapons but not attacks on children is perverse. To call attacks on weapons terrorism but not attacks on children is perverse. When government comes to such an extreme position - legislating that peace is war, that weapons need more protection than children - then they have fundamentally gone wrong. This is the definitio...

Art Lester

  I've just heard the extremely sad and shocking news of the death of Unitarian Minister Art Lester. It shocked me even more as I was emailing him a few days ago as he spontaneously emailed me thanking me for my book and offering to send me a copy of his latest one (pictured above).  I already feel like I've missed the opportunity to get to know him better, as he's the kind of person I would really have liked to have been a mentor as he always seemed wise and spiritually rooted, in a mischievous, not-taking-himself-too-seriously way (which is a good sign of spiritual maturity I think).  He ended his email with, "I attach a portion of a sermon I’ll be giving at the Paris Fellowship next month.  It’s my 29th service over the past 27 years and possibly my last.  I wouldn’t normally bore a colleague with my scribbles, but I think you might like this one."  I do. I do like this one. And as he now won't deliver this at Paris Fellowship I thought it was worth shar...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...